On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 18:53 +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> If you do [0.1, 0.2 .. 0.3] it should leave out 0.3. This is floating
> point numbers and if you don't understand them, then don't use them.
> The current behaviour of .. for floating point is totally broken, IMO.
I'm curious, do you have even a single example of when the current
behavior doesn't do what you really wanted anyway? Why would you write
an upper bound of 0.3 on a list if you don't expect that to be included
in the result? I understand that you can build surprising examples with
stuff that no one would really write... but when would you really *want*
the behavior that pretends floating point numbers are an exact type and
splits hairs?
I'd suggest that if you write code that depends on whether 0.1 + 0.1 +
0.1 <= 0.3, for any reason other than to demonstrate rounding error,
you're writing broken code. So I don't understand the proposal to
change this notation to create a bunch of extra broken code.
--
Chris